Curiously, the leaders fall into distinct groups, while the followers are individuals. It seems the EU is being driven by currents of opinion that the political class are subject to and cannot control.

Eurosceptics: the winners in next year’s European elections

Today, ‘Eurosceptics’ make up about 170 (i.e. 22%) of the MEPs in the European Parliament. Some estimate that the next ‘anti-establishment’ cohort will rise to 250, or one-third of the Strasbourg assembly. The only silver lining is that such a setback for the ‘establishment’ parties might bring an end to the regrettable ‘Spitzencandidaten’ system.

In the camp of the leaders too, there are ‘activists’ who come from the most radical NGOs: anti-glyphosate, anti-GMO, anti-meat, anti-science. Thanks to their convictions, their mastery of social networks and their barely-concealed aggression, they are the ones dictating the EU agenda. They lead politicians towards lax compromises, half-measures and soft positions.

There is a third category: bureaucrats. They are everywhere. At both European and national level, power is slipping from the political to the bureaucratic. The technocrats’ regulatory stranglehold is strengthened by an incomprehensible decision-making process.

The main followers: Commission President and College

The goal of the Lisbon Treaty was to maximise the power of the Institutions: via the European Council, Heads of State or Government would be involved in setting the EU policy direction. Parliament’s role was to be expanded and the Commission was to gain more power over delegated and implementing acts.

In practice, it was the opposite. With 9 years of hindsight, we can see just how weak the Institutions have become: the European Council has taken the lead on all files, using the Commission as a mere secretariat. Although composed of strong personalities, the Commission offers no resistance. Nobody questions President Juncker, who was probably selected to be weak. Lazy in its legislative activity, the Parliament uses the anti-democratic system of trilogues for all its files now.

Having the monopoly of legislative initiative and supposed to be the ‘engine of the EU’, the Commission takes refuge in a comfortable herd mentality, following the vague guidelines laid down by the European Council.

The last-chance Commission 2019-2024

President Macron’s speeches at the Sorbonne and during the presentation of the Charlemagne Prize sparked enthusiasm: finally, a real pro-European. But results are not meeting expectations. Too scattered, not enough delegation, and an out-dated vision of the European Union. While one respects his action, unfortunately he limited his analysis to a geopolitical vision of the EU. Even if too French in expression, he could have added a more operational angle to this interesting approach.

The EU executive is no longer working: too heavy, bureaucratised and unaccountable. Without Treaty change, lots can be done to simplify, lighten the structures and boost accountability. Ignore the excuse that the Commission is near the end of its mandate – it still has 13 months of activity left! This need to improve performance applies equally to the Council and the European Parliament.

In 2014 Jean-Claude Juncker described his team as “the last-chance Commission.” They already said that at the time of President Thorn (1981-85). Thanks to support from Mitterrand-Kohl, the Single European Act of 1987 and the single market, the Delors Commissions (1985-95) found solutions. So let’s not be overly pessimistic. But it’s clear that the next one (2019-2024) really will be the last-chance Commission.

]]>https://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/10/03/quand-les-leaders-deviennent-followers-et-linverse/feed/0Aligning contrasting views and interests in the European Union: a triple failurehttps://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/09/19/aligning-contrasting-views-and-interests-in-the-european-union-a-triple-failure/
https://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/09/19/aligning-contrasting-views-and-interests-in-the-european-union-a-triple-failure/#respondWed, 19 Sep 2018 15:37:52 +0000http://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/?p=1046» read more]]>Representing interests (more commonly known as ‘lobbying’) is a complex profession founded on a simple choice: either you try to convince and build consensus via mediation, or you work to impose one side’s view upon the other. The European Union, so long a beacon of mediation, is slowly drifting towards the second option. This is a real danger!

For a long time public affairs was structured around two actors: voters and the representatives they elect. The European Economic Community, as a creator of technical regulations since its creation in 1957, added a third (Commission civil servants) and then a fourth: lobbying groups. In the Anglo-saxonised world of Brussels, lobbying groups are well-established and are always consulted by the institutions.

The system, based on decision-making processes that were on the whole simple (or at least standardised) and involved a limited number of players, functioned well up until the 2000s. At the turn of the 21st century, four factors changed the rules of the game: decision-making processes were made much more complex by the Lisbon Treaty, control over files slipped from the political to the technical level, civil society emerged and the use of social networks became widespread.

Today, five actors – a kind of pentagram – share the European power

In the EU, the Commission remains the cornerstone of decision-making (since it proposes and implements), with the co-legislators (the European Parliament and the Council) adopting laws. But clearly the lower levels of the Commission are currently more important than those residing at the upper echelons. In addition to these experts, the Commission has other experts who prepare impact assessments, conduct scientific analyses and participate in working group discussions.

The orientation is determined up high, but implementation is done at the bottom. Elected politicians are the guarantors of democracy. But what about experts and bureaucrats? Of course, they are not anti-democratic, but it is not their job to be democratic. In fact, they are ‘ademocratic’! Their job is to draw up technical regulations and they do it as best they can, but with their help, the political vision of the founding fathers and their immediate successors is slipping in the direction of a technocratic Europe.

Two actors are missing from our pentagram: NGOs – also known as ‘civil society’ – and industry. But instead of treating them as separate categories, could we not make them two branches of the same category? The simple answer is ‘no’, because their interests, methods and strategies are radically different. There was a time when NGOs were effectively non-existent in Brussels: few in number, badly organised, weak resources. Today, they dominate the EU sphere.

There is no question of criticising NGOs as organised influence groups – they are a vital component of democracy. But it must be stressed that the ‘NGO bloc’ is not monolithic. Some aspire to dialogue and discussion. Others are more radical, hostile to the capitalist logic of our societies. And some of them – the ones we hear the most – are composed of activists.

Thanks to their mastery of communication and social networks, and their belief that they speak for the public interest, it is obvious that NGOs are the ones dictating the EU agenda. By contrast, industries are on the defensive, unable or unwilling to promote their interests and persuade others.

This issue is important, because if economic and industrial sectors (chemical, plant protection, agriculture…) continue losing against Greenpeace, Pesticide Action Network or Friends of the Earth, the fear is that European R&D will be outsourced to the USA or China, and our society will go backwards technologically. People are distrustful of science, industry, professors and experts…with the risk of returning to the age of sail boats and steam engines!

From objectivity to subjectivity!

Philosophically, objectivity does not exist. But we can try to get close to it; that is the role of the legislator. The desire to be ‘objective’ is now drifting towards subjectivity because the arguments are becoming clichés. Civil servants and politicians should be ‘nuanced’ in promoting the public interest, but instead we are confronted in the daily management of public affairs lobbying with caricatured positions and ‘black-and-white’ strategies that are the very antithesis of the need for mediation. There are plenty of examples of this!

The GMO issue is instructive in the way it has been buried by the EU. The case of NBTs (New Breeding Techniques) has gone down the same road, now considered equivalent to GMOs. The EU is therefore becoming like an island, where these products are taboo while everywhere else they are being developed. Worse still, massive imports of soya meal and other feed for livestock are coming into the EU, with residues of substances that are banned here. Apart from farmers, nobody seems surprised or concerned about this.

The big NGOs are past masters in modern communication. Greenpeace produces a million signatures against glyphosate while the farming world – which is primarily affected – cannot get 50,000! NGOs have local networks (as do farmers, but they do not know how to mobilise them unless a tractor protest is organised). NGOs reign supreme on Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram, while industry is still coming up with long and complex position papers aimed at experts – but nobody else can read them!

Nobody argues anymore, nobody seeks to persuade, nor does anybody try to build consensus. Civil society (NGOs) frames the arguments, often as caricatures. To be blunt, the bigger the caricature, the more often it succeeds. Faced with this onslaught, industry lies down, goes on the defensive and waits for something to happen, not understanding that the longer you wait, the worse things get.

From subjectivity to softness!

Glyphosate is the perfect example of poor European governance and laxity. Does it cause cancer or not? The man in the street does not have a clue, and neither do I. To reach an objective decision, the European Commission uses specialised agencies. The European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Authority have both concluded glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

Two things: either the Commission trusts its agencies and moves to authorise glyphosate, or it does not trust its agencies and must abolish or reform them.

In this affair, the laxity was two-fold: the Commission did not openly support its agencies and took refuge in a kind of comfortable duplicity (“we are not ‘for’ but neither are we ‘against’”). And when the file – an implementing act subject to Member State agreement – went to appeal, the Commission – despite being authorised to adopt in the absence of a qualified majority – shirked its responsibility for the final decision, to the great satisfaction of NGOs.

It was only thanks to an unexpected reversal of policy by Germany that a qualified majority was eventually found in favour of re-authorising glyphosate for 5 years. Some months later, a European Parliament angry with this decision set up a special ‘PEST committee’ whose very name suggests the orientation of its objectives.

In a brutal, competitive and unstable world, we absolutely have to push for a return to respectful governance of all stakeholders’ interests; a return to governance that builds consensus. This is no small matter. In fact, it is vital for the future of the European Union because it is a response to Euroscepticism. Everything must be done to adjust EU decision-making procedures and make all actors more accountable: the Commission, the co-legislators, NGOs and industrial lobby groups. For the latter, most of them are fighting yesterday’s battles, and they really need to adapt their influence techniques and trade associations to the new paradigm described above. To see economic sectors on the defensive is not good for them or for us, and certainly not for the society we aspire towards.

On 10 July, the report of the Task Force on Subsidiarity, Proportionality and ‘Doing Less More Efficiently’ was published. Set up at the end of 2017, the taskforce’s objective was to make recommendations on how better to apply the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, identify policy areas where work could potentially be re-delegated or returned to EU Member states and find ways to involve regional and local authorities more in EU policy making.

An ambitious task fully in line with the ‘Better Regulation’ path the European Commission set itself when coming into office. Over several months, selected experts discussed a wide range of items on their plate and their report makes numerous recommendations to the Commission, many of which are common sense.

Task Force Recommendation n° 9 falls especially into that category:

‘The next Commission, with the European Parliament and the Council, should reflect on rebalancing its work in some policy areas towards delivering more effective implementation rather than initiating new legislation in areas where the existing body of legislation is mature and/or has recently been substantially revised.’

‘Of course, it makes sense, doesn’t this already happen?’ are just some reactions you may have when coming across this recommendation. In the field of the EU’s Circular Economy policy, this apparently evident principle seems, however, to have been thrown out the window.

Waste legislation: a work in progress

As part of the Plastics Strategy and the overall Circular Economy Action Plan, the final adoption of the amended Waste Framework, Packaging and Packaging Waste and Landfill Directives was accomplished in the spring of 2018. The revised legislative acts require the adoption of a series of implementing and delegated acts.

Most notably, work and studies are on-going with regard to calculation and reporting rules (due by 31 March 2019) including determining average loss rates and identifying ‘input to recycling’ for various waste materials. In parallel, work has started on minimum requirements for Extended Producer Responsibility schemes (in particular fee modulation) and a review of Essential Requirements for packaging is also envisaged.

The adoption of these measures will ultimately determine the full regulatory set-up Member states will have to integrate at national level and what stakeholders will have to live up to. It is impossible to evaluate the full effect of this legislation.

SUP: putting the cart before the horse

Nevertheless, amidst the on-going implementation of these laws, the European Commission tabled a proposal on 28 May 2018 for reducing the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. The so-called Single-Use Plastics (SUP) proposal includes a number of measures targeting items most commonly found in marine littering, ranging from consumption reduction and awareness-raising about product and marking requirements, to Extended Producer Responsibility and ultimately the prohibition of placing specific products on the market.

With the European Parliament recess closing in, the Commission is keen on fast-tracking this initiative through the Ordinary Legislative Procedure to have it adopted already this year, or at the latest early 2019.

Who could argue against the ambition to create a cleaner maritime environment by tackling litter? No one. However, the means to reach this end are, to say the least, troublesome and in direct contradiction with the recommendations of the Task force set up by the Commission itself.

Answering the questions before concluding the deal

Concerns about the implications of the newly proposed rules on single-use plastics for the incomplete regulatory framework of the waste legislation are justified. The risk of inconsistencies, overlaps and gaps is looming:

How do the definitions featuring in the SUP proposal relate to the definitions laid down in the waste legislation? Could they give rise to contradiction?

What will be the legal and operational impact of introducing Extended Producer Responsibility schemes for single-use plastic products on the EPR requirements currently being developed in the context of the amended Waste Framework and Packaging and Packaging Waste Directives?

How consistent (or inconsistent) is the timeframe for transposition and implementation of the revised waste legislation with the proposed timeframe for introduction of measures under the single-use plastic initiative?

All in all, what will be the impact of introducing the proposed rules on single-use plastic products on the transposition and integration of the amended waste legislation which, as indicated above, is so far incomplete? No one really knows and this is worrying a growing number of stakeholders and decision-makers.

It is only common sense to answer these questions first in order to avoid jeopardising already adopted legislation. Regulatory coherence, legal certainty and environmental ambition can co-exist, but only if they are not rushed due to political expediency.

]]>https://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/07/18/les-mysteres-du-parlement-europeen-premiere-partie/feed/0Mysteries of the European Parliament (Part One)https://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/07/18/mysteries-of-the-european-parliament-part-one/
https://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/07/18/mysteries-of-the-european-parliament-part-one/#respondWed, 18 Jul 2018 09:51:26 +0000http://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/?p=1005» read more]]>Everyone knows the European Parliament (EP) is deficient in terms of technical knowledge, but let’s forget that and talk instead about the Parliament buildings in Brussels. Do they need to be renovated? Restored? Or rebuilt? This month a friendly bird dropped onto our desk a memo – undoubtedly intended to be confidential – that examines the three options above and assesses the cost of each one.

For a “basic” renovation, it would require “around” €310 million; a restoration with “new limited functionalities” would cost €345 million; for a demolition/reconstruction, around €380 million. The seriousness of the study really jumps out at you! Thus, there would be only a 25% gap between a mere upgrading and major works involving knocking down, re-designing and rebuilding almost 100,000 m2 of office space.

The timeframes are not stipulated. However, the document does say that it will be up to the Parliament Bureau to make a decision during the second half of 2019, i.e. after the elections. In the meantime, no uncomfortable questions and no waves. The same silence persists with regard to the Wiertz Museum next to the EP. What is happening here? Is the Museum going to be captured by the parliamentary ogre?

These colossal (and seemingly inevitable) works raise questions that, although uttered quietly in private, we refuse to address in public. Is the Strasbourg building being used as a kind of logistical staging post during these works so that the Parliament can ultimately be moved to a single seat in Brussels? Ulterior motives are numerous, ambitions are formidable and double standards are guaranteed.

Basically, behind the pretext of renovation hides the issue of the European Parliament’s future. It is too easy for the EP to demand more offices, more budget and more power, while at the same time its law-making performance diminishes and its role as co-legislator falls under threat from the predominance of the European Council on political files and from the bureaucratic grip of the Commission on technical files.

There is no end in sight to the mysteries of the European Parliament. To be continued in September!

]]>https://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/07/18/quitter-lunion-ou-changer-lunion/feed/0Leave the EU or change the EU?https://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/07/18/leave-the-eu-or-change-the-eu/
https://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/2018/07/18/leave-the-eu-or-change-the-eu/#respondWed, 18 Jul 2018 07:39:56 +0000http://danielgueguen.blogactiv.eu/?p=995» read more]]>Many Member States are in crisis: the UK with Brexit; Germany with immigration; Italy, Spain and Greece with an incomplete Schengen; too much regionalism from the Visegrad Four; France being too French. What to do: leave the EU? Wait for the storm to pass? Or change the EU? These are things to think about during the holidays.

As I have said a thousand times, Brexit is like Guillver and the dwarves. A large country – the 5th most powerful in the world – is bound to the Union by 14,000 laws and regulations, and by 700 international trade agreements. Soft Brexit, hard Brexit, cliff-edge Brexit without a deal…none of this makes any sense because the UK cannot leave the EU without a negotiated agreement. The only solution at this stage is to extend the 2-year negotiation period that is currently set to expire on 29 March 2019. The Austrian Prime Minister has already made noises in this regard. Accepting 6, 9 or 12 more months of talks would effectively consign Brexit to oblivion, since it could only then take place after the European elections, after the arrival of the new Commission and after agreement on the next financial framework – in other words, never!

The painful issue of immigration is also an example of the EU’s inability to take decisions. Despite years of crises, shipwrecks, hot spots, and regional, national and international divisions, Schengen is still not in place. The recruitment of 10,000 border guards – always promised but never delivered – is now back on the agenda. Is it not necessary to appoint a ‘Mr Schengen’ like we appointed Mr Barnier as ‘Mr Brexit’, to turn words into action?

President Macron’s plan to secure the Euro is also colliding with obstacles of all kinds, obstacles that are first and foremost budgetary. No Europeanisation of public debt while the European Central Bank has for years been buying them up! No ‘Euro Parliament’, in effect a second Parliament, when all we need to do is re-shape the first one! And still no Social Europe, as if the Commission sees itself as the passive guardian of an ultra-liberal order sowing the seeds of its own disappearance. And then we have a trade war and an EU paralysed by Trump; stuck in a defensive (even ridiculous) posture.

When everyone comes back in September we will see the return of the Spitzenkandidaten, that disastrous system that kills leadership. But leadership is exactly what we need; we need a Commission that wakes up and understands that money needs to be invested and not stored. In using its monopoly of legislative initiative it must show audacity, not a comfortable but destructive conservatism.

This will to take the bull by the horns needs to extend to the way the EU is governed – too complicated, too opaque, too bureaucratic – so we can offer the British a sort of Plan B that would allow them to save face and feel more at ease, without having to leave the EU.